Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How does the US benefit from Corps moving jobs from city A to city B?
How corporate socialism destroys: David Cay Johnston
A proposal to spend $250 million of taxpayer money on a retail project here illustrates the damage state and local subsidies do by taking from the many to benefit the already rich few.
Nationwide state and local subsidies for corporations totaled more than $70 billion in 2010
RPT-COLUMN-How corporate socialism destroys: David Cay Johnston | Reuters
On the national/international scale the question would be how does the US benefit from corps moving to this country instead of away from this country. I provided an example on a local scale.
But to answer your question, we are a republic, and being a republic states that are not conducive to investments deserve what they get.
If you don't want liberty in your state you are free to ban subsidies. Let me guess you don't like the fact that one company can offer people a rate of pay that is higher than other company, that's just not fair right? Yeah we should all be forced to work for nothing and receive our feed from government distribution centers.
US GOV'T POLICY FOR NEARLY 200 YEARS KEPT JOBS FROM BEING OFF SHORED, SINCE CORPS GET THE VAST MAJORITY OF PROFITS FROM THE US, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE POLICIES THAT PROTECT THEM?
Oh we AREN'T a society and red states can race to the bottom as fast as possible?
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation
In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala | New Republic
Really? And your economic credentials are what? Because I could easily have been the one to post that. And dude, good luck thinking you can out do the years of expertise I have.
You libs need to throw in the towel. Did you not see today's NBC poll on what a disaster the economy is??????????????????????????????????
If you spent any money on your education, that's not a very compelling argument in support of your economic acumen.
You are a salesman. You try to sell gloom and doom for political purposes. And in doing so, you ensure that no one will be listening if you ever sound a legitimate alarm.
That wasnt even coherent. Not even for you.
Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'free trade', etc) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic eliteNo
The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.
In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
WHICH side was correct again?
U.S. capital gains rates vs. GDP
U.S. tax brackets and GDP
Straight marginal rates vs. GDP
Why is it that duche bag democrats just can't stop crying about what other people have? Wealth is not a zero sum game retard.
Not only that, the libs arguing economics on this Board are so lacking in critical thinking skills that I have to wonder if they even graduated from high school.
Anyone who uses Wikipedia as their first, or even worse, their only source gets an F in critical thinking.
Wikipedia is crowd sourced by God only knows who.
Most of the shit found on the internet has a heavy liberal bias because it's created by libs. Google, Facebook, Wiki......they're all started by big lib contributors.
And yet the dullards don't think to look at the bias.
And that's why we're witnessing the complete revision of economic history and the Bizzarro World we now live in.
On the national/international scale the question would be how does the US benefit from corps moving to this country instead of away from this country. I provided an example on a local scale.
But to answer your question, we are a republic, and being a republic states that are not conducive to investments deserve what they get.
If you don't want liberty in your state you are free to ban subsidies. Let me guess you don't like the fact that one company can offer people a rate of pay that is higher than other company, that's just not fair right? Yeah we should all be forced to work for nothing and receive our feed from government distribution centers.
US GOV'T POLICY FOR NEARLY 200 YEARS KEPT JOBS FROM BEING OFF SHORED, SINCE CORPS GET THE VAST MAJORITY OF PROFITS FROM THE US, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE POLICIES THAT PROTECT THEM?
Oh we AREN'T a society and red states can race to the bottom as fast as possible?
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation
In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally arent as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinists paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala | New Republic
I have no idea what your point is.
You are rambling and providing random links. I live in TX, a red state. We are doing just fine here. Though we do have a lot of retired folk coming here to escape blue states, and we do have a lot of poor immigrants who come here seeking jobs.
If you spent any money on your education, that's not a very compelling argument in support of your economic acumen.
You are a salesman. You try to sell gloom and doom for political purposes. And in doing so, you ensure that no one will be listening if you ever sound a legitimate alarm.
That wasnt even coherent. Not even for you.
I don't expect you to understand most of my posts. I wasn't engaging you. I was engaging someone who claims to be educated.
ANOTHER conservative sucking off the teet of Gov't that hates Gov't. Shocking
No, we actually provide a product/service for the money we receive. Also as a contractor, we can easily be thrown of the job if we do not meet our contractual requirements.
And its for city government, not federal government, so any of my positions when it comes to the federal government being too big are moot.
"ANOTHER conservative sucking off the teet of Gov't that hates Gov't. Shocking"
That wasnt even coherent. Not even for you.
I don't expect you to understand most of my posts. I wasn't engaging you. I was engaging someone who claims to be educated.
No one can understand gibberish, you retard.
Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'free trade', etc) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic eliteNo
The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.
In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
WHICH side was correct again?
U.S. capital gains rates vs. GDP
U.S. tax brackets and GDP
Straight marginal rates vs. GDP
Why is it that duche bag democrats just can't stop crying about what other people have? Wealth is not a zero sum game retard.
Not only that, the libs arguing economics on this Board are so lacking in critical thinking skills that I have to wonder if they even graduated from high school.
Anyone who uses Wikipedia as their first, or even worse, their only source gets an F in critical thinking.
Wikipedia is crowd sourced by God only knows who.
Most of the shit found on the internet has a heavy liberal bias because it's created by libs. Google, Facebook, Wiki......they're all started by big lib contributors.
And yet the dullards don't think to look at the bias.
And that's why we're witnessing the complete revision of economic history and the Bizzarro World we now live in.
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
I'm not surprised in this Bizzarro World Obama has created that uninformed liberals associate trickle down with the impact of Obama's economic policies.
The correct word to use is sluggish.
As for what it means...the short answer is the exuberance that was the result of Reagan's highly effective economic policies in the 80's.
When Ronnie had a top rate of 50% the first 6 years? Or his tripling US debt? Perhaps the 14 million jobs in 8 years compared to 9+ million under Carter's 4 years?
Dad23, why are you even here anymore. You've been completely discredited. Anyone want to see how badly, just look up the "Forget Statistics....Exuberance or Malaise?" thread.
You take a bunch of numbers that you've pulled out of your arse and they have no meaning in the big scheme of things. You completely fail to analyze the small picture let alone the big picture.
When Ronnie had a top rate of 50% the first 6 years? Or his tripling US debt? Perhaps the 14 million jobs in 8 years compared to 9+ million under Carter's 4 years?
Dad23, why are you even here anymore. You've been completely discredited. Anyone want to see how badly, just look up the "Forget Statistics....Exuberance or Malaise?" thread.
You take a bunch of numbers that you've pulled out of your arse and they have no meaning in the big scheme of things. You completely fail to analyze the small picture let alone the big picture.
That's some funny stuff coming from the person who claimed that Bush 'provided' all the jobs that were created during his presidency, and,
that Bush's numbers were great if you only looked at the good years of his presidency.
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
Trickle is easy to understand, hence it's "appeal" to the Republican base. The problem is it is riddled with so many "suppositions" that without one of the suppositions working as expected, the entire scam falls completely apart.
Broadly speaking, it's assumed that if you shovel money to the already rich (or as it is properly called "redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1%") in the form of tax breaks, free water, free land, deregulation, subsidies and corporate tax breaks, with the "extra money", they will create jobs or spend it on large ticket items like yachts and estates. They will spend the "extra" money and it will "trickle down" to the rest of us and that will fund jobs and create a vibrant middle class. To a simple mind, it really is "just that simple".
Now for the reality:
1. There are hundreds of millions of Americans living in this country. There simply isn't that much "trickle".
2. What if they buy Italian Yachts and their new "estate" is in Spain? That doesn't help us here.
3. What if they decide to save and not spend. That money is now out of the economy.
4. Most jobs come from small business and not the super rich. So how does throwing money at them help the country.
5. What if the corporations build their new plant overseas. (like the millions of jobs lost and the 43,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008).
6. The foundation of all reputable economies around the world, "supply and demand", for Republicans it is a wild liberal theory that has no part in "trickle down".
Just a few minutes and I've completely torn apart the GOP's entire economic strategy. That's what happens when you rely on "simple" in a complex word. To believe in the nonsense of "Trickle Down", you would most certainly have to be a "simpleton".
And yes Virginia, it really is "just that simple".
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
Trickle is easy to understand, hence it's "appeal" to the Republican base. The problem is it is riddled with so many "suppositions" that without one of the suppositions working as expected, the entire scam falls completely apart.
Broadly speaking, it's assumed that if you shovel money to the already rich (or as it is properly called "redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1%") in the form of tax breaks, free water, free land, deregulation, subsidies and corporate tax breaks, with the "extra money", they will create jobs or spend it on large ticket items like yachts and estates. They will spend the "extra" money and it will "trickle down" to the rest of us and that will fund jobs and create a vibrant middle class. To a simple mind, it really is "just that simple".
Now for the reality:
1. There are hundreds of millions of Americans living in this country. There simply isn't that much "trickle".
2. What if they buy Italian Yachts and their new "estate" is in Spain? That doesn't help us here.
3. What if they decide to save and not spend. That money is now out of the economy.
4. Most jobs come from small business and not the super rich. So how does throwing money at them help the country.
5. What if the corporations build their new plant overseas. (like the millions of jobs lost and the 43,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008).
6. The foundation of all reputable economies around the world, "supply and demand", for Republicans it is a wild liberal theory that has no part in "trickle down".
Just a few minutes and I've completely torn apart the GOP's entire economic strategy. That's what happens when you rely on "simple" in a complex word. To believe in the nonsense of "Trickle Down", you would most certainly have to be a "simpleton".
And yes Virginia, it really is "just that simple".
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
Trickle is easy to understand, hence it's "appeal" to the Republican base. The problem is it is riddled with so many "suppositions" that without one of the suppositions working as expected, the entire scam falls completely apart.
Broadly speaking, it's assumed that if you shovel money to the already rich (or as it is properly called "redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1%") in the form of tax breaks, free water, free land, deregulation, subsidies and corporate tax breaks, with the "extra money", they will create jobs or spend it on large ticket items like yachts and estates. They will spend the "extra" money and it will "trickle down" to the rest of us and that will fund jobs and create a vibrant middle class. To a simple mind, it really is "just that simple".
Now for the reality:
1. There are hundreds of millions of Americans living in this country. There simply isn't that much "trickle".
2. What if they buy Italian Yachts and their new "estate" is in Spain? That doesn't help us here.
3. What if they decide to save and not spend. That money is now out of the economy.
4. Most jobs come from small business and not the super rich. So how does throwing money at them help the country.
5. What if the corporations build their new plant overseas. (like the millions of jobs lost and the 43,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008).
6. The foundation of all reputable economies around the world, "supply and demand", for Republicans it is a wild liberal theory that has no part in "trickle down".
Just a few minutes and I've completely torn apart the GOP's entire economic strategy. That's what happens when you rely on "simple" in a complex word. To believe in the nonsense of "Trickle Down", you would most certainly have to be a "simpleton".
And yes Virginia, it really is "just that simple".
Why do you even bother making a serious reply to the Rabbi?
He will just dismiss it without reading and say....see? You can't define trickle down
The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.
Trickle is easy to understand, hence it's "appeal" to the Republican base. The problem is it is riddled with so many "suppositions" that without one of the suppositions working as expected, the entire scam falls completely apart.
Broadly speaking, it's assumed that if you shovel money to the already rich (or as it is properly called "redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1%") in the form of tax breaks, free water, free land, deregulation, subsidies and corporate tax breaks, with the "extra money", they will create jobs or spend it on large ticket items like yachts and estates. They will spend the "extra" money and it will "trickle down" to the rest of us and that will fund jobs and create a vibrant middle class. To a simple mind, it really is "just that simple".
Now for the reality:
1. There are hundreds of millions of Americans living in this country. There simply isn't that much "trickle".
2. What if they buy Italian Yachts and their new "estate" is in Spain? That doesn't help us here.
3. What if they decide to save and not spend. That money is now out of the economy.
4. Most jobs come from small business and not the super rich. So how does throwing money at them help the country.
5. What if the corporations build their new plant overseas. (like the millions of jobs lost and the 43,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008).
6. The foundation of all reputable economies around the world, "supply and demand", for Republicans it is a wild liberal theory that has no part in "trickle down".
Just a few minutes and I've completely torn apart the GOP's entire economic strategy. That's what happens when you rely on "simple" in a complex word. To believe in the nonsense of "Trickle Down", you would most certainly have to be a "simpleton".
And yes Virginia, it really is "just that simple".
So you denigrate conservatives for liking simple explanations but sell your own explanation because it's simple?
You are a dunce, RDunce. You didnt even come close to describing it. And this is after reliable informed people actually gave good accounts.
Trickle is easy to understand, hence it's "appeal" to the Republican base. The problem is it is riddled with so many "suppositions" that without one of the suppositions working as expected, the entire scam falls completely apart.
Broadly speaking, it's assumed that if you shovel money to the already rich (or as it is properly called "redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1%") in the form of tax breaks, free water, free land, deregulation, subsidies and corporate tax breaks, with the "extra money", they will create jobs or spend it on large ticket items like yachts and estates. They will spend the "extra" money and it will "trickle down" to the rest of us and that will fund jobs and create a vibrant middle class. To a simple mind, it really is "just that simple".
Now for the reality:
1. There are hundreds of millions of Americans living in this country. There simply isn't that much "trickle".
2. What if they buy Italian Yachts and their new "estate" is in Spain? That doesn't help us here.
3. What if they decide to save and not spend. That money is now out of the economy.
4. Most jobs come from small business and not the super rich. So how does throwing money at them help the country.
5. What if the corporations build their new plant overseas. (like the millions of jobs lost and the 43,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008).
6. The foundation of all reputable economies around the world, "supply and demand", for Republicans it is a wild liberal theory that has no part in "trickle down".
Just a few minutes and I've completely torn apart the GOP's entire economic strategy. That's what happens when you rely on "simple" in a complex word. To believe in the nonsense of "Trickle Down", you would most certainly have to be a "simpleton".
And yes Virginia, it really is "just that simple".
So you denigrate conservatives for liking simple explanations but sell your own explanation because it's simple?
You are a dunce, RDunce. You didnt even come close to describing it. And this is after reliable informed people actually gave good accounts.
Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner!
I timed the previous post exactly. Do I know Rabbi or what?
So you denigrate conservatives for liking simple explanations but sell your own explanation because it's simple?
You are a dunce, RDunce. You didnt even come close to describing it. And this is after reliable informed people actually gave good accounts.
Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner!
I timed the previous post exactly. Do I know Rabbi or what?
So someone fails to define trickle down economics, I point that fact out and you win?
In your mind.
My next prediction is you will respond with cartoons or snark or both.
What is "Trickle Down Economics"?
Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner!
I timed the previous post exactly. Do I know Rabbi or what?
So someone fails to define trickle down economics, I point that fact out and you win?
In your mind.
My next prediction is you will respond with cartoons or snark or both.
Rabbi Threads 101
Rabbi: You cannot define X
Numerous posters: Proceed to thoroughly define X
Rabbi: See? You cannot define X
